NEW JERSEY: I just received the latest issue of the Grace
Proclamator, and wanted to write concerning your editorial on Why? Why? Why?
I thought that you brought out some excellent points regarding Protestantism and the
universal church heresy. I hope that you will print this letter as I have included some
interesting case studies.

About ten years ago I had some contact with a group of
non-denominational fundamentalists in Pennsylvania. This group was very fond of the
Scofield Reference Bibles notes regarding the "church". (Editors
Note: Scofield sets forth three churches in his Bible: the local church, the regional
church as the "church in Memphis which includes all the local congregations of all
denominations in Memphis, and "the true church," which is the
mystical creature called the universal invisible church.) One of the leaders in this group
was very knowledgeable about Landmark Baptists. He admitted that our churches had their
roots far back in antiquity, however, he still thought that we were heretics. He insisted
that the dispensation of the law existed until Pentecost in spite of what Luke 16:16 says.
He also thought that the disciples only had a temporary salvation until Pentecost when he
thinks that they truly had eternal life. Yet, eternal life was received during the
ministry of Jesus by those who trusted him as Lord and Saviour (See John 3:3, 16, 36).
That same person later caused controversies and left the group. They all insisted that all
believers formed a universal body, yet they separated from other Christians over the
slightest deviation in opinion from what they believed. They would not hold fellowship
with one of Americas largest Fundamentalist schools in South Carolina. But, as I
said, they held to the universal body doctrine and made it a test of fellowship.

Case #2 involved another member of that same group who admitted
that in the Greek, EKKLESIA (ekklesia) meant only
an assembly, but he insisted that God gave the word an entirely new meaning in the
English. This is the same argument that the Protestants used in defending their wicked
baby sprinkling. Incidentally, the man whom I just mentioned was saved in a Landmark
Baptist Church in New York but turned his back on the truth. He now pastors some
non-denominational church where he can flaunt his heresy and deceive believers.

Case #3 involved a man who lives here in New Jersey. He has been
involved in numerous splits and divisions in churches out here. He told me that while he
didnt believe in a universal church, he did believe that all Christians were in one
body. Well thats the same thing! He didnt understand that the Lord used the
term "body" as a metaphor, and that it referred to a local assembly. I
confronted him one time as to the meaning of EKKLESIA and all that he would
say was "ha?" I think that that is a very ignorant response. Some people have
told me that they believe that believing in a universal church is an evidence of
salvation. You read that right! These people have fallen for the wicked lies of
old Mother Rome, her children and grandchildren.

Case #4 involved a man who is a famous preacher in the Southwest.
I heard him speak in Florida about ten years ago. He related how he grew up in ABA
churches but went to a popular fundamental school. While admitting that EKKLESIA
only meant a local assembly, he stated how he was "led by the Spirit" to believe
that all Christians were in one universal body! "1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe
not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets
are gone out into the world. By the way, that fellow left the ABA years ago
because he knew that sound brethren wouldnt go for his "big church".

Brethren, we need to stand like men, believing the preserved Word
of God (KJV, Textus Receptus, Hebrew Massoretic). I want to bring one final thing to your
attention; please pray for churches to be planted in New Jersey, we need them badly. I
hope that some of your readers will write in response to this letter if it is printed.
Thank you for an edifying publication.

I covet your prayers!

KENTUCKY: Thanks for sending the Grace Proclamator and
Promulgator. I read it all about as soon as it comes, and agree with a lot of it!

Since you will probably get some "flak" over your
position on race, as stated on pages 6 & 7 of the January issue, let me give a word of
encouragement. It has been my joy for over 30 years to be outspoken on this matter in
almost exactly your words. For years, as a teacher and administrator at Mid-Continent
Baptist College, I worked to open our doors to godly people of any race, with some
success. A dear friend, ___________, taught in the same school (he is still emeritus
professor there), and was even more outspoken than I. In fact, he lost one pastorate over
the issue. But Acts 8 is clear enough; if we are not willing to preach the gospel to the
elect of every race, we deny grace!

Ben Bogard was a pastor in this area, and among those who helped
constitute this (SBC) association in 1893. We are "landmark" in our
ecclesiology, and my booklet, The Church on the Rock, is a presentation of
this position . . . Also, please encourage Brother Huffman in his position that we need
not "dot every i and cross every t" exactly alike to have good fellowship. Part
of Christian maturity is the recognition that "I could be wrong about
something." (Of course, only un-Christian immaturity is reflected in "always
learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth.") There is a necessary
balance, and you paper comes near that point. I suppose my good friend, Cecil Fayard, of
Grenada, MS, put me on the list; Ive seen the paper in his church while visiting
there.

At any rate, thanks for your testimony; maybe it will help a bit
to know there are even some "Southern" Baptists who agree!

LOUISIANA: You have been doing a great job with your paper.
You are doing a good work. Keep it up my brother.

CANADA: Just a quick note to say, "Hello," and to
tell you how much I appreciate the paper, GP&P! I do not always agree on every jot and
tittle, but nearly! . . . I like your stand on Baptist traditions which are unscriptural .
. . Keep up the good work!

OKLAHOMA: Im really enjoying the articles youre
writing about Israels restoration. Are the a-mills still fretting? . . . I
dont see how anyone could argue against itanyone that believes the Word of
God, anyway.

I also wanted to mention that I enjoyed the article on preaching
the Word in a balanced fashion. While I love the KJV, and use it for study and preaching,
I cannot go with those who make it more that it is. It is just a translation of the
Worda good translation, I believe, and worthy of confidence and usebut not a
perfect translation, and not necessarily better than any other translation. But it is
based on the right texts, which most modern translations are not. And, it is a translation
(in most cases), rather than an interpretation, which many modern versions are. What is
passing strange is that the KJV translators did not make anywhere near the claims for the
KJV that the "KJV only" proponents do!

I also am with you 100% on the mens/womens clothes
issue, the long hair issue, and the head covering. I have held to the position you
describe on the mens/womens clothes issue for a long time, but this is the
first time I remember seeing anyone put it down on paper. This is one of those silly hobby
horses that men try to ride, and does nothing for the glory of God, or the edification of
the churches. It seems to me that the key here is whether the man or woman is trying to be
perceived as the opposite sex. There are pants that are perceived in this culture as being
feminine, and there are pants that are perceived as masculine. How many men wear pants
suits?!

The problem with the mens/womens clothes issue is
defining some particular clothing design/construction as belonging particularly to one
sex. As you mentioned, the clothes they wore in Biblical times were largely the same in
construction for both sexes. Let some man show up for services (in one of these
argumentative preachers churches) in clothes like our Lord wore! I imagine the fur
would be flying very quickly.

Some say now that pants are only for men. But (I have read) that
pants were originally designed for women, because they could not accidentally expose more
than was modest by blowing in the wind, or if the woman fell. So then, if this story be
true, pants are actually womens clothing! But then they say that it is the current
(fashion) culture that must decide whether any particular style of clothing belongs to men
or women, and therefore pants belong to men. {You might note that this argument is
generally propounded by the older generation, who grew up when women didnt wear
pants often.} The easy reply there is, "Be ye not conformed to the fashion of this
world . . .!" But if the current fashion does dictate to us, then surely the current
fashion is for women to wear pants.

My point is that unless we take the Scripture to mean that men
should not attempt to look like women and vice versa, we will soon be involved in
countless difficulties trying to figure out what belongs to men and what to women. Not
only will we be befuddled by the fashion changes over time, but also Christians in various
parts of the world will have to change their style of dress when they travel, since
various cultures have different (and often opposite) ideas of what belongs to men versus
women. In Arabic countries pants (and especially shorts) on women are often considered
abomination, but the ordinary clothing for men is what most Westerners would call a dress.

I enjoy the paper. Keep up the good work.

FLORIDA: Brother, your article on Preaching the Word
in balance was a breath of fresh air, especially the portion in which you dealt with the
issue of the design and construction of womens and mens clothing. I have heard
so much on this that cannot be backed up by Scripture that it makes me sick. You are the
first whom I have seen have the nerve to put down in writing what many of us know to be
the truth. Again, it was a breath of fresh air!

ALASKA: I want you to know I appreciate your recent articles
on Gods restoration of Israel. I doubt that most see the current dangers of the
"Dominion Theology" movement and the post-mil doctrines resurrection. Both
are gross mis-applications of Scripture so far as I am concerned. This another catalyst
toward a World-Wide Universal Church. Its much like the modern tongues movement in
that respect.

ARKANSAS: Please remove my name from your list of recipients
of your publicationthe Proclamator. I do not understand why you would try to destroy
the credibility of the AV 1611KJV.

All other translations in English, teach different meanings than
the KJV. God promised we would always have his word. These new translations cannot be
correct if the KJV is correct. (They differ) If the KJV is not correct and without
error, then there was a period of time when God left the major world language without
his word.

I believe he has always made good his promises to us. Please mail
me no more.

EDITORS NOTE: I have never tried to discredit the KJV,
but have repeatedly declared on these pages and from the pulpit my love for the Word of
God and the KJV translation of that word. The brother apparently has reference to some
things I said in the last issue of the paper (He has only been on the mailing list a
couple of months). I asked in that issue and I ask again for some Biblical reference from
the KJV 1611which mentions the AV 1611 indicating it is the one version that we are to use
today.

Do not we Baptists insist on a "thus saith the Lord" for
our doctrinal stands? Do not we Baptists insist that the Bible is the only and
all-sufficient rule for our faith and practice? Do not we Baptists rebuke Rome and
others for adding to the word and making their additions as binding as the 66 books
composing the Bible? That being true, I have asked and am asking for a "thus saith
the Lord" that establishes firmly that the KJV AV 1611 is the one and only one we are
to use.

The Brother also wrote, "If the KJV is not correct and without
error, then there was a period of time when God left the major world language without
his word." I wonder if he has given any thought to what he has said. His position of
"King James onlyism" means that many people went many years without the word of
God before the KJV. It also means that much of the inhabited world today has no Bible
because many do not read or speak English. One also wonders what this brother would do if
he went to a country where English is not commonly spoken or understood. Would he have an
interpreter translate his reading of the KJV? Would that not produce a flawed version
heard by the people?

The brother also wrote, "All other translations in English,
teach different meanings than the KJV." Now I wonder if this brother has read all the
other versions and knows for a fact that they are different in every case. I also wonder
if the brother uses an AV 1611 in his study and in the pulpit, or, if in fact, he uses a
1769 revision of the KJV, which I believe is the fifth revision of the AV 1611? If the AV
1611 was an inerrant, "correct and withouterror"
translation, why has it been revised at least five times and why, if he does, would he use
one of the revisions rather than the genuine AV 1611.

If I held that the AV 1611 was the only "correct and withouterror" version of God's word available, I would preach from none else, not
even a revision of the AV 1611.

It would appear that the Brother does not have an answer to what I
wrote last issue. He cannot produce a text from the AV 1611 that declares it to be the
only acceptable version, and is therefore without a text, and, therefore, without Biblical
authority, when he preaches that it is.

And, by the way, I have a copy of the AV 1611 and it has 14 books
in it that are not in the 1769 revision which I use. Were these infallible translators
infallible when they included these books as part of the AV 1611? If not, is there not a
serious problem here? Should we be preaching from First Esdras, Second Esdras,
Tobit, Judeth, The rest of Eshther, Wisdome of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch with the
Epistle of Jeremiah, The Song of the Three Children, The Story of Susanna, The Idole Bel
and the Dragon, The Prayer of Mannasseh, First Maccabees, and Second Maccabees? If
not, why not, since these books were translated by the KJV translators and are included in
the AV 1611?

And, Yes! I dropped the brother from our mailing list as he
requested, but I sent him a copy of this along with a letter in which I asked him the
questions that I raised here. He refused to answer a single one. I wonder why.